Date: 1906
Source: Lenin Miscellany, vol. 26
Pages: 195-197

1182
CORRECTIONS TO THE MANUSCRIPT OF THE ARTICLE "IN THE TAIL OF THE MONARCHICAL 
BOURGEOISIE OR AT THE HEAD OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT
AND PEASANTRY?"*
NO. 15 OF "PROLETARII," SEPTEMBER 5 (AUGUST 23) 1906.

In the Tail of the Monarchical Bourgeoisie or at the Head of the 
Revolutionary Proletariat and Peasantry?

Therefore, if now Iskra in No. 108 throws [again dark] some kind 
of hints at the theory of "non-interference," "absenteeism," "abstention," 
"crossed arms," etc., then we first of all brush aside such "objections," 
because this is not polemics, but [a mean, paltry] 
MERELY 
AN ATTEMPT 
[to "scratch"] to "scratch" the oppo­
nent. [through crude distortions.] With such methods of "polemics,"—
which culminate in the insinuation that some leaders themselves want to 
get into a provisional government,—new Iskra has long already aroused 
among the broadest circles of social democracy a well-deserved contempt 
for it**.

...All the remaining points of disagreement 
[("pressure" 
on 
elections, 
"branding" of bourgeois "conciliators" or traitors, etc.)] HAVE COMPARATIVELY 
LESS IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANCE... Iskra goes so far as to say that "the organization 
of revolutionary self-government, this is the only way of genuine 'organization'" 
[(supposedly, ironic quotation marks of our newfangled Petrushkas!)] OF AN ALL-PEOPLE 
UPRISING.

...The bourgeois "conciliators" want to achieve a constitution
* Works Vol. VII, 166–175. Ed.
** The words "well-deserved contempt for it" were replaced by Olminsky 
with the words: "a certain attitude toward itself." Ed.
*

LENIN MISCELLANY

with the aim of suppressing the revolution; Mr. Vinogradov (see below) 
expressed this striving of the liberal bourgeoisie, inevitably flowing from 
its class position, with [full] particular clarity.

...But it would be an error to forget that this intelligentsia 
is more capable of expressing 
[broad and sustained] broadly-understood 
essential interests of the whole bourgeois class in distinction from 
the temporary and narrow interests of only the "upper" layers of the bourgeoisie...

...The latter are thinking about whether to go to the people, [not at all] 
without yet breaking completely with the theory of "conciliation" and 
without taking fully to the revolutionary path.

...But the large bourgeoisie will never be able to become a [firm] 
reliable and faithful supporter of autocracy among the people. It will always 
take a constitution with one hand (for itself), and with the other hand—
take away rights from the people or oppose the expansion of the people's rights...

In such a situation, to attack the idea of the boycott 
would [mean] on the part of the S.D.s to play the role of political 
simpletons...

..."Thus the possibility is excluded of making the [State] Duma an instrument 
of democratic revolution and, evidently, agitation directed toward that end is 
rejected."
[the underlined words show precisely the error we have just outlined. The [State] Duma cannot 
be made an instrument of democratic revolution and there is nothing to be done about it, 
because the [State] Duma will inevitably and in any case be partly an instrument of it. Partly—
that is, insofar as constitutional conflicts between the tsar and the large bourgeoisie are 
inevitable within it. But for us the center of gravity must lie not in it, since it will inevitably 
betray the proletariat, but in the mass of the peasantry and in the radical intelligentsia, capable 
of drawing close to that mass. What is more important: to prevent an agreement between 
landowners and the tsar, or to promote an agreement between the peasantry and the proletariat? 
Comrade Cherevanin will object: let the second be more important, but the first must also be 
done. Very well. Then let us see how to do it. !...]

...When a certain Russian dignitary was asked why on August 6 an amnesty 
was not granted, he answered: why indeed would we free 10,000 people, whose 
arrest cost us no small effort and who tomorrow would begin a desperate 
struggle with us. This dignitary reasoned wisely, while those who speak of 
"revolutionary self-government" before the liberation of these
10,000 reason [foolishly] unwisely.

* The word "simpletons" was replaced by Olminsky with "simpleton." Ed.

AT THE HEAD OF THE REV. PROLE. AND PEASANTRY?

1 On the back of the last page of the manuscript Lenin made a calculation 
of letters and printed lines of the article: "25 × 45 = 1125; 19 × 11 = 209; 21 : 60 = 
= 350." Lenin counts roughly 25 lines per page and 45 letters per line. 
He then rounds the result to 1,100 characters. He multiplies 1,100 by 19 (the number 
of pages). Instead of the obtained 20,800 characters, he takes 21,000. In the printed 
text he counts on average 60 characters per line. Dividing 21,000 by 60, for the 
printed text, he obtains 350 lines. In fact the article occupied 404 
lines.
